If Brexit marks the beginning of the end for the European project, Brussels will take its share of the blame

If Britain leaves the EU and if the reaction to Brexit causes years of uncertainty, the EU will reap what it has sowed. British discontent is only a precursor to unrest on the Continent, where populists from across the political spectrum feel they have lost control over their fate, and are gaining popularity.

We’ve seen the transfers of power to the European level after ignoring the referendums on the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands in 2004. We’ve witnessed the refusal to allow Grexit, which could have been an alternative for continued fiscal transfers and interventions into national budgetary decisions. Both have created a lot of discontent and anti-EU sentiment since 2010.

Last year, there was the decision to outvote Central and Eastern Europe on the sensitive issue of forcing countries to accept refugees, which isn’t even possible in a passport-free zone, as people can travel freely, but which was decided to divert attention from criticism on Angela Merkel’s controversial refugee policy and to organize yet another transfer of power to the EU level.

Finally, we could see how Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposals to bridge the gap between the EU and citizens were met with a lukewarm reaction. His proposal, for example, to allow national parliaments to block EU proposals was watered down to make it harder to implement.

If the British vote to ‘Remain’, they most likely won’t do so with a majority of more than 60%. That however is the threshold needed, according to pollster Comres, to really settle the debate for the next few years.

With a narrow victory for the ‘Remain’ camp, it is therefore more than likely that the debate would just start over the next day, very much like the Scottish demand for independence which has remained a prominent feature in UK politics after 44.7% of Scots voted to secede from the UK in a referendum in 2014.

If people vote to ‘Leave’ the EU, the government is likely to activate article 50 of the EU Treaty, which foresees that the status quo is maintained for two years and that both parties are given the chance to renegotiate their relationship.

Many think that two years will be much too short for this. The British government thinks that there could perhaps be 10 years of uncertainty, while EU Council President Tusk has mentioned seven years. Some in the ‘Leave’ camp have claimed that there may even be a second referendum after a Brexit vote, whereby Britain would get the chance to remain in the EU after all, but under better conditions than those negotiated by Cameron in February this year.

It’s unlikely that the UK would want a relationship similar to that between Norway and the EU. Norway may have complete access to the European single market because of its membership of the European Economic Area but in exchange it needs to comply with over a set of EU rules without having any influence over them within the EU institutions. That surely won’t be an option for a country which just would have left the EU because of a desire to have more sovereignty.

Also, to have the EU-Canada trade deal (CETA) as a model, as advocated by the ‘Leave’ campaign’s Boris Johnson, may not be appealing, given the lack of access the financial services industry would enjoy to the EU market.

The British may prefer something like the Swiss model instead, which means that the UK and the EU would negotiate which markets they would open to each other and which rules they would harmonise or mutually recognize. At the moment, a Swiss firm like Credit Suisse is based in London in order to be able to access the EU’s single market, so some extra hurdles may emerge.

Whatever trade relationships are pursued by a post-Brexit Britain, it’s very possible that a Brexit vote would unleash protectionist sentiment on the Continent and that the EU would want to punish the “naughty pupil” by means of limiting market access for British financial firms. Diplomats have already made clear that both France and the EU Commission are keen to “punish” the UK if it would vote to leave, while Germany, which exports a lot to Britain, is planning to be more conciliatory in the event of a vote for Brexit.

This protectionism would both hurt Britain and the Continent, given that the City of London can be seen as its financial lifeline. It would in any case be similar to the EU’s reaction to Switzerland, after the Swiss expressed in a referendum the desire to restrict free movement for EU citizens and the EU Commission essentially refused to negotiate.

British proponentsof EU membership have made the case that Cameron’s deal guarantees that the “high-watermark” of EU intervention in British policy has been reached.

But EU opponentshave questioned how legally bindingthe deal is, leading to obscure debates on the relationship between international and EU law. They have claimed that even after threatening the nuclear option – a referendum on Brexit – Cameron didn’t manage to obtain more than what they consider to be peanuts.

One thing is certain: if Brexit marks the beginning of the end of the EU project, many of those responsible are to be found in Brussels.

Original source at: zero hedge - on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero | http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/british-discontent-about-eu-only-precursor-unrest-continent

If I knew nothing about the growth, the debt, the inflation, the exporters vs. importers, the serial defaulters, currency manipulators, hot-money or conversely deflation fighters, etc. etc. and simply grouped the nations of the world by interest rates paid on 1yr and 10yr sovereign debt…well I’d get a funny feeling the rates paid have a stronger correlation to the relationship of the nations to the US than any other variable. I’d wonder if your status with the central bank cabal was more important than your ability to repay the loaned money? Luckily I know better!

Italy with the world’s 3rd largest aggregate debt, no growth, and no enforceable tax laws have blended rates that are ludicrous and indicative of institutional fraud…in fact, that can be said of nearly all these rates.

Australia and New Zealand are the only “outliers” paying up on yields and generally sitting in the wrong classifications.

Inflation is hot property today, hyperinflation is even hotter! We think we are modern, contemporary, smart and ready to deal with anything. We’ve got that seen-it-all-before, been-there-done-it attitude. But, we are not a patch on what some countries have been through in the worst cases of hyperinflation in history. Here’s the top 10 list of worst cases in history. We’ll start with the worst first…let’s think positive!

Hungary 1946

Inflation at its peak reached a staggering figure of 13.6 quadrillion % per month! That’s 13, 600, 000, 000, 000, 000%. The largest denomination bill was a 100 Quintillion note. Prices ended up doubling every 15 hours at the time.

Zimbabwe 2008

Prices doubled here every 24.7 hours in November 2008 and inflation reached levels of 79 billion-odd %. They eventually stopped using the official currency and switched to the South African Rand or the $US. A loaf of bread ended up costing $35 million. This is the most recent case. It was Mugabe’s land-redistribution program that caused this.

Yugoslavia 1994

In just the one month of January 1994 inflation rose by 313 million %. Prices doubled every 34 hours (which is nothing compared to Hungary). The currency ended up getting revalued 5 times in all between 1993 and 1995, all to no avail. The cause? A recession triggered by overseas borrowing and an on-going political struggle in the 1980s and the following decade.

Germany 1923

Adolf Hitler rose to power as a consequence of hyperinflationary pressure (at least one of the reasons). Prices doubled every 3.7 days and inflation stood at 29, 500%. Germany was crippled with the reparation payments after the Treaty of Versailles and the end of World War I.

Greece 1944

Prices started rising by 13, 800% in October 1944 and they doubled every 4.3 days. The trouble was the debt incurred by World War II.

Poland 1921

Prices rose in 1921 by 251 times in comparison with those of 1914. They doubled every 19.5 days. The Zloty was introduced as the new currency in 1924 in an attempt to start afresh. Inflation stood at 988, 233% in 1924.

Mexico 1982

Mexico had a rate of inflation of 10, 000% in 1982 (due mainly to too much social expenditure).

Brazil 1994

Inflation was 2, 075.8% at its worst in 1994. The Real was adopted in 1994 and it managed to calm inflation down.

Argentina 1981

The highest denomination bill was the one million pesos note. The Peso was revalued three times.

Taiwan 1949

This was a knock-on effect from China and the Chinese Civil War. The New Taiwan Dollar was issued in June 1949. The monthly rate of inflation stood at 399%

Inflation can be creeping (mild or moderate inflation) or galloping. We can talk of Hyperinflation and stagflation (inflation and recession). Deflation is not better. We have so many names for it.

Hyperinflation means prices doubling in such a short space of time that we can’t keep up with it all. Hyperinflation comes about at times of trouble, war, conflict, upheaval, change on unprecedented levels. It comes about because we still haven’t learnt how to control it. History repeats itself, we hear people say. Thankfully, it doesn’t repeat itself too often. Fingers crossed.